DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 119632--------------------------------------------------
Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: southampton-map
Date: May 24, 2026, 6:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi. This spot seems very well known to the group. I will use the
replies given from the latest reply to apply to the tribunal as
this seems to have worked.
They have also only just rejected my representation (originally
dates 9 Feb). So being over 90 days I believe that also falls
into the being over 3 months - will the tribunal throw it out on
that basis too?
London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003
Penalty Charge Notice : HZ96913603
Verification Code : 81E616
Date of Contravention : 30/01/2026 at 18:57
Vehicle Registration : LM65GBY
Location : RMV Rivercourt Rd NthBnd adj nos 17 (va)
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATION
Thank you for your representation.
Why the PCN was issued?
This PCN was issued because the vehicle was observed and
recorded by an unattended
camera, ignoring a ‘No Motor Vehicle’ except buses, taxis, and
permit holders’ sign.
Private hire vehicles are not automatically exempt. The
exemption applies only to Hackney
Carriages.
Your challenge
You have stated that “I am challenging this PCN on the grounds
that the contravention did
not occur due to inadequate signage.
Please send me a copy of the TMO for the junction so I can
review it.
However, from what I saw driving, the 'No Motor Vehicles' sign
at the junction of Rivercourt
Road is mounted at a height that sits outside a driver's natural
line of sight when turning
left from the A4, and it is obscured by foliage until it's too
late. Furthermore, there is a lack
of clear, legible advance warning on the A4 to allow a driver to
safely adjust their route
before committing to the turn. As the signs fail to meet the
visibility and placement
requirements set out in the Traffic Signs Manual, the
restriction is unenforceable and the
penalty should be cancelled.”
My findings
I have considered what you have said, however I am satisfied
that the restrictions at this
location are clearly and adequately sign posted and comply with
all the relevant
regulations.
Access through Rivercourt Road is restricted to residents and
permit holders of
Hammersmith and Fulham. The scheme was brought in to reduce the
amount of traffic
using the road as a cut through. These restrictions apply 24
hours a day, 7 days a week
including Bank Holidays.
Motorists who are visiting residents of local roads may use
Rivercourt Road if given
access by the resident, who can do so by using the RingGo app.
Only residents in
Rivercourt Road, Cromwell Avenue, Weltje Road, Beavor Lane,
Vencourt Place,
Ravenscourt Park, (only part -properties from junction of King
Street to train bridge) and
Ravenscourt Road (only part – from junction of King Street to
train bridge) are able to
provide such access.
Local shops and businesses are also able to provide free access
through the new
Rivercourt Road traffic camera for staff, deliveries and
customers, via the Business Visitor
Access RingGo app.
Delivery drivers, trades people, mini cabs, and other
non-residents can access any
property in the area without needing to go through Rivercourt
Road.
To avoid getting a PCN, non-H&F registered drivers should enter
the area via
Hammersmith Broadway and King Street.
For more information on the project, please go to: Making
Rivercourt Road safer | London
Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham
A recording of the contravention can be viewed on-line by
following the links on the
Parking pages at the Councils web site
HTML http://www.lbhf.gov.uk
or
directly at
HTML https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/pcn
(select the link to "Challenge a
Fine and View Images” and
follow the instructions) - The video can be seen below the
photos.
Photos can be viewed by clicking on the different numbers below
the image displayed on
screen to move between them.
My decision
I have considered what you have said and all the available
evidence, but I do not agree
that we should cancel your liability for this Penalty Charge
Notice (PCN).
What happens next
Your options are detailed below.
On this occasion only, we will allow you another opportunity to
pay this PCN at the
reduced amount of £80.00. I must however advise you that we are
not required to do this
by law. This offer will not be re-offered for this PCN.
Before the end of the period of 28 days (beginning with the date
of service of the notice of
rejection), you should:
1. Pay the charge as described below:
- We will accept £80.00 in full and final settlement of this
case provided that we receive
payment within 14 days (beginning with the date of service of
this notice of rejection).
YOU MAY NOT MAKE AN APPEAL TO THE ADJUDICATOR AND TAKE ADVANTAGE
OF THIS £80.00 SETTLEMENT OFFER.
- The full penalty charge of £160.00 will be required to close
the case if we receive
payment within 15-28 days (beginning with the date of service of
this notice of rejection).
or;
2. Appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators:
To appeal, complete the enclosed form `Your right to appeal` and
send it to it to London
Tribunals. DO NOT SEND YOUR APPEAL FORM TO THIS OFFICE.
Alternatively you can
make your appeal online at the following address
www.LondonTribunals.gov.uk. Please
ensure that you quote the unique appeal verification code stated
on this Notice of
Rejection and follow the online instructions on how to complete
your appeal.
Any appeal to London Tribunals should be made within 28 days of
the date of service of
this notice. Late appeals may be considered; however, this would
only be at the discretion
of the Adjudicator.
Appealing to the Adjudicator is free. Adjudicators do not
normally award costs or
expenses, although they can do so if they decide that either you
or we acted frivolously,
vexatiously, or wholly unreasonably in the appeal, or that our
decision in this Notice of
Rejection was wholly unreasonable. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU WILL BE
LIABLE FOR
THE FULL PENALTY CHARGE IF YOUR APPEAL IS NOT SUCCESSFUL.
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/TpGJorxtkdsJWyU1A
Can’t seem to load the evidence on my phone - I will do this
when on a pc
#Post#: 119633--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: southampton-map
Date: May 24, 2026, 7:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Here’s the evidence
HTML https://imgpile.com/p/vEQApiT
#Post#: 119961--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: southampton-map
Date: May 28, 2026, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My draft response is this based on reading previous discussions.
Any help would be appreciated:
Notice of Appeal
To: London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators)
Date: 28 May 2026
Enforcement Authority: London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
PCN Reference: HZ96913603
Contravention Code: 52M — Failing to comply with a prohibition
on certain types of vehicles (Motor Vehicles)
Location: Rivercourt Road, London
1. Introduction & Key Timeline
1.1 I wish to appeal against the Notice of Rejection (NOR)
issued by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham (“the
Authority”) on 19 May 2026. The NOR rejects my representations
against the issuance of Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) HZ96913603,
which alleges a contravention of Code 52M on 30 January 2026 at
Rivercourt Road.
1.2 The procedural timeline of this matter is central to my
primary ground of appeal and is detailed as follows:
30 January 2026: Date of alleged contravention.
6 February 2026: Date of issuance of the PCN.
9 February 2026: Date formal representations were submitted by
the Appellant (within 3 days of PCN service).
19 May 2026: Date of issuance of the Notice of Rejection by the
Authority.
Total Elapsed Time: 3 months and 10 days (99 days) from receipt
of representations to the issuance of the NOR.
1.3 This appeal is brought on two distinct grounds:
Primary Ground (Procedural): The Authority acted with
inordinate, unjustified delay in responding to my formal
representations, constituting a breach of the common law duties
of fairness, due diligence, and procedural propriety.
Secondary Ground (Substantive): The alleged contravention did
not occur because the signage layout fails to provide adequate
advance information to motorists, creating an unavoidable safety
hazard.
2. Primary Ground: Unjustified Inordinate Delay (Collateral
Challenge)
2.1 I acknowledge that the London Local Authorities and
Transport for London Act 2003 does not prescribe a rigid
statutory time limit for serving a notice of rejection in moving
traffic cases, unlike the strict 56-day limit applicable to
parking contraventions.
2.2 However, it is a foundational principle of public law that
an enforcement authority must exercise its statutory powers
within a reasonable timeframe, acting with due diligence. This
Tribunal has explicitly formalized this expectation, publishing
a clear guidance statement on its website: "The adjudicators
have decided that an Enforcement Authority should normally
respond to representations within 3 months."
2.3 In the present case, the Authority required 3 months and 10
days (99 days) to respond to representations that were submitted
promptly by the Appellant. Crucially, the issued Notice of
Rejection offers absolutely no acknowledgement, explanation, or
mitigating justification for this delay.
2.4 This Tribunal has consistently held that exceeding the
3-month guideline without a compelling, documented justification
constitutes a fatal procedural flaw. Such a delay renders
subsequent enforcement unfair and unlawful, serving as a valid
collateral challenge to the validity of the PCN.
2.5 I note that this specific Authority has a documented pattern
of non-compliance regarding these exact timeframes. As recently
as April 2026, this Tribunal allowed multiple appeals against
the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham on identical
grounds of inordinate delay (e.g., Lloyd Jantuah v LBHF [Case
2250654961] and Shanye Hazel-Marriott v LBHF [Case 2250663918],
both cited in the Appendix).
2.6 The Authority was fully aware of its legal obligations and
the explicit expectations of the Tribunal, yet failed to meet
them or justify its failure. On this procedural ground alone, I
respectfully submit that enforcement cannot be lawfully pursued
and the PCN must be cancelled.
3. Secondary Ground: The Alleged Contravention Did Not Occur
In the event that the primary procedural ground is not upheld, I
preserve the substantive defence that the layout and signage at
the intersection of the A4 and Rivercourt Road are legally
deficient and structurally unsafe.
A. The Legal Standard for Adequacy of Signage
3.1 The primary authority on the adequacy of traffic signage is
established in R (Oxfordshire County Council) v The Bus Lane
Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin). At paragraph 65 of the
judgment, Beatson J confirmed:
"The Defendant's submission that the fact that signs are
prescribed or authorised does not mean they are sufficient for
securing adequate information as to the effect of an order is
made available to road users is clearly correct. If the signs do
not in fact provide adequate information no offence is
committed; see James v Cavey [1967] 2 QB 676."
3.2 The Oxfordshire case concerned the exact same regulatory
sign used here—Diagram 619 ("No motor vehicles")—but under
fundamentally different structural conditions. In Oxfordshire,
the local authority had successfully placed advance warning
signs (Diagram 450) at intervals of 450, 180, and 20 yards
before the restriction, ensuring approaching motorists had
sufficient notice to safely avoid the junction.
3.3 In the present case, the Authority has failed to coordinate
with Transport for London (TfL) to place any appropriate advance
warning signage on the A4 dual carriageway. A motorist
approaching the Rivercourt Road turning is completely blind to
the restriction until they have already committed to the
physical manoeuvre. To achieve the legal standard set out in
Oxfordshire, a "No Left Turn" sign (Diagram 613) with a
supplementary plate ("Except buses, taxis, cycles and authorised
vehicles") ought to be positioned immediately prior to the
junction, complemented by a map-type advance warning sign 50
meters prior. No such signs were present on the day of the
alleged contravention.
B. Signage Complexity and Information Overload
3.4 Upon initiating the turn from the A4 onto Rivercourt Road, a
driver is immediately confronted by an overwhelming cluster of
no fewer than 11 separate traffic signs located at the immediate
mouth of the junction. This exceptional density includes but not
limited to:
A composite Controlled Parking Zone sign (containing complex
text variations from the standard prescription);
Two separate One-Way street signs;
A Speed Limit sign;
A structural restriction sign (vehicles exceeding a prescribed
weight) with highly detailed, multi-line associated plates;
A No Entry sign with an associated supplementary plate;
A Red Route Clearway termination sign; and
A local street name plate.
3.5 The actual regulatory sign relating to residents' access is
highly obscured, positioned on the opposite side of the road
rather than prior to the turning point.
3.6 It is a physical and cognitive impossibility for a motorist
safely decelerating from a three-lane, 40 mph trunk road (the
A4) to read, interpret, and process 11 distinct pieces of
regulatory visual data within a matter of seconds. The sheer
density of information fails the statutory requirement that
restrictions must be conveyed clearly and unambiguously to an
approaching driver.
C. Absence of Safe Egress and Conflict with the Highway Code
3.7 The physical infrastructure of the junction actively traps
the motorist once the turn is initiated. The vehicle is
immediately funneled by a give-way line and two solid white
lines. These markings are positioned so close to the A4
carriageway that halting a vehicle to read the signage cluster
creates an immediate risk of shunting, potentially blocking
trailing traffic on a high-speed arterial road.
3.8 The "turning bay" referenced by the Authority in its Notice
of Rejection is a structural farce. It provides no viable, safe
option for a standard vehicle to retreat from the restriction
once committed to the turn.
3.9 To avoid entering Rivercourt Road at that juncture, a
driver's only alternative would be to reverse backward out of
the side road directly into a live, 40 mph three-lane dual
carriageway. Such an action is strictly prohibited under Rules
200 and 201 of the Highway Code, which dictate that a motorist
must never reverse from a side road into a main road due to the
profound danger to public safety.
3.10 Consequently, once committed to an otherwise entirely legal
turning maneuver, the motorist is directly compelled by the
physical geometry and markings of the junction to proceed down
Rivercourt Road. Because the Authority failed to provide an
advance warning, a safe method of turning around, or a lawful
method of egress, the contravention cannot be said to have
legally occurred.
4. Relief Sought
I respectfully request that this Tribunal:
Allow the appeal on the Primary Ground, confirming that the
Authority's unmitigated 99-day delay violates procedural
fairness, and direct that PCN HZ96913603 be cancelled; or
In the alternative, allow the appeal on the Secondary Ground,
finding that under the standard established in R (Oxfordshire
CC) v Bus Lane Adjudicator, the signage layout fails to provide
adequate information, and therefore no legally enforceable
offense occurred.
Yours faithfully,
Appellant
28 May 2026
#Post#: 119962--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: southampton-map
Date: May 28, 2026, 3:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
However this is over 4000 characters long!! can you help me cut
down please?
#Post#: 123812--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: southampton-map
Date: July 5, 2026, 11:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I had a tribunal set for December set for this one, however I
have just been emailed that will cancel the ticket and therefore
the tribunal too. Result!!
#Post#: 123836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Hammersmith & Fulham Code 52M restricted for certain
vehicles. Rivercourt Road
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: July 5, 2026, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: southampton-map link ---
>
> I had a tribunal set for December set for this one, however I
have just been emailed that will cancel the ticket and therefore
the tribunal too. Result!!
>
--- End Quote ---
Well done !
H & F are a load of venal and rapacious shysters as they
continually feature in this forum as only being interested in
the cash a PCN will deliver them. Somebody in their organisation
should really be in jail for malfeasance for causing such a
flawed restriction to be implemented. The regulations in The
Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and
Wales) Regulations 1996 have been ignored almost in their
entirety.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1